9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of proviso to section 204A(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 regarding the appointment of a person who previously held the office of managing agent. Validity of payment of remuneration to a chairman without prior approval from the Central Government. Applicability of section 314(2)(a) of the Companies Act regarding refund of money contrary to the provisions of section 204A. Deductibility of the payment as business expenditure for income tax purposes. Analysis: The judgment addressed the interpretation of the proviso to section 204A(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, which regulates the appointment of a person who previously held the office of managing agent in a company. The proviso stipulates that such appointments must be approved by the company in a general meeting and by the Central Government within six months from the date of the amendment. Failure to obtain approval within this period renders the appointment invalid. In the case at hand, the chairman's appointment was not approved within the stipulated timeframe, leading to a dispute over the validity of his continuation in office and the payment of remuneration to him. The judgment delved into the validity of the payment of remuneration to the chairman without prior approval from the Central Government. The company had paid the chairman a salary during a specific period, which the Income-tax Officer sought to disallow as business expenditure. The Officer argued that the payment contravened the proviso to section 204A(1) and section 314(2)(a) of the Companies Act, thus making it impermissible. The Tribunal, however, reversed this decision, deeming the payment legal when made and therefore deductible as business expenditure. The applicability of section 314(2)(a) of the Companies Act regarding the refund of money contrary to the provisions of section 204A was also a focal point of the judgment. This section mandates that any expenditure made against the provisions of section 204A must be refunded to the company, and the company cannot waive the recovery without Central Government permission. The judgment clarified that while the failure to recover the amount might be deemed illegal, the initial payment itself, when made lawfully, cannot be considered illegal. The Income-tax Officer's view that the payment was illegal was deemed incorrect, and the Tribunal's decision to reverse this aspect of the order was upheld. Lastly, the judgment addressed the deductibility of the payment as business expenditure for income tax purposes. It emphasized that the payment made to the chairman during the specified period, while he was functioning in his role, was not illegal. Therefore, the sum paid to the chairman was considered a legitimate business expenditure and could be deducted in computing the company's income. The judgment concluded in favor of the assessee, allowing the payment as a deductible business expense and awarding costs to the assessee.
|
